Ed Hull – Plaintiff Filing ADA Lawsuits
Edward Hull, a California ADA Plaintiff, has filed hundreds of lawsuits against businesses in California. He is represented now by attorney Anoush Hakimi of the Law Offices of Hakimi & Shahriari, who file ADA lawsuits. In lawsuits we have seen, ADA Plaintiff Edward Hull claims he has significant impairment in his lower body, causing pain and limited range of movement. He’s claiming he’s experiencing bilateral knee pain and left shoulder pain. Plaintiff is claiming he has arthritis in his left shoulder, which also has a muscle tear.
Some of the most recent lawsuits filed are:
ED HULL V. ROIC PARAMOUNT PLAZA, LLC, Case # 24CMCV01465, Date Filed: 09/25/2024
ED HULL V. SOUTH BAY CONTRACTORS, INC, Case # 24CMCV01341, Date Filed: 09/03/2024
Recent News
ADA Plaintiff ED Hull recently filed a lawsuit in Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles on 10/03/2024.
Case Name: Ed Hull, an individual, Plaintiff, v. 909 S. Central Ave LLC, a California limited liability company; AND does 1-10.
Case Number: 24CMCV01535
Sample Lawsuit Below
ADA Plaintiff ED Hull, represented by ADA Plaintiff attorney Anoush Hakimi of the Law Offices of Hakimi & Shahriari alleges to have encountered barriers that denied him equal access, including issues with parking, uneven surfaces, and inadequate signage, all of which caused him difficulty and frustration as a cane user with mobility impairments. Hull argues these businesses have intentionally neglected to address these accessibility violations. See sample lawsuit below.
FACTS
- The Property and/or the Business owned, leased, and/or operated by
Defendants is a facility that is open to the public and includes a business
establishment.
- The Property has been newly constructed, and/or underwent
remodeling, repairs, and/or alterations since 1992, and Defendants have failed to
comply with California access standards that applied at the time of each new
construction and/or alteration or failed to maintain accessible features in operable
working condition.
- Plaintiff visited the Property during the relevant statutory period on
two (2) separate occasions, on November 18, 2023 and November 29, 2023, to
patronize the Business on the Property.
- The premises violated applicable California and federal construction related
accessibility standards, including Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations (California Building Standards Code), Part 36 of Title 28 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (28 CFR Part 36), the ADA Standards for Accessible
Design (“ADAS”), and the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and
Facilities (“ADAAG”).
- Defendants did not offer persons with disabilities equivalent facilities,
privileges, and advantages offered by Defendants to other patrons.
- Plaintiff encountered barriers, both physical and intangible, that
interfered with, and denied, Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy the goods, services,
privileges, and accommodations offered at the Property.
- Parking, route(s) of travel, signage, Business entrance, Business
interior, and other architectural amenities for patrons visiting the Property are
among the facilities, privileges, and advantages offered by Defendants to patrons of
the Property.
- However, there were inadequate accessibility features for disabled
persons at the Property. Defendants’ facilities did not comply with the ADAS,
ADAAG, and/or the California Building Code (“CBC”).
- When Plaintiff visited the Property, Plaintiff experienced multiple
access barriers, including but not limited to barriers related to parking, signage, and
route(s) of travel. This list of barriers and violations is not exhaustive or completely
inclusive. There are other barriers that Plaintiff encountered at Defendants’
Property and Business.
Plaintiff encountered the following barriers at Defendants’ facilities:
This Property, which serves the CVS Business, has major UNRUH/ADA
violations throughout.
In particular, the tow away sign(s) (white sign stating that
“UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLES PARKED IN DESIGNATED
ACCESSIBLE SPACES … WILL BE TOWED AWAY”) must be
posted in a conspicuous place at each entrance to an off-street parking
lot (facility), or immediately adjacent to and visible from each
designated parking stall (space). 2010 CBC § 1129B.4; 2019 CBC § §
11B-502.8, 11B-502.8.2. The requisite sign(s) are not posted. Plaintiff
must use the designated disabled parking spaces and requires the
proper protections of an access aisle and an accessible route of travel to
safely access the Property. Clear signage that explicitly warns of the
consequences for improperly parking in the designated disabled
parking spaces will deter others without disabilities from parking there.
The sign identifying one of the designated disabled parking spaces is
illegible because it is covered with adhesive sticker(s) and/or graffiti.
2019 CBC § 11B-502.6; 2010 ADAS § 502.6. This makes it difficult for
Plaintiff and other patrons to see and read the sign. Plaintiff, a cane
user, needs to be able to use an accessible parking space, with an access
aisle, to safely access the Property. Clear signage that explicitly marks
the designated disabled parking space will deter others without
disabilities from parking in the space and thereby blocking him from
being able to use it. Plaintiff experienced difficulty and frustration
because it was difficult to locate and identify the designated disabled
parking area without the proper signage. It was further frustrating
because Plaintiff knows from prior experiences that the lack of
compliant signage will make it more likely that non-disabled patrons will
improperly park in the designated disabled parking space, as they would
not be adequately deterred.
The route of travel, from the designated disabled parking spaces to the
Business entrance of the Property, has an uneven ground surface with
excess changes in level (of more than one-half inch without a ramp
and/or more than one-quarter inch without a bevel). 1991 ADAS §§
4.5.2, 4.6.8; 2010 ADAS §§ 302.1, 303.1, 303.2, 303.3, 303.4; 2010 CBC §§
1120B.2, 1133 B.7.1, 1133B.7.4; 2019 CBC §§ 11B-303.1, 11B-303.2, 11B-
303.3, 11B-303.4, 11B-303.5. The route of travel also has cross slopes
greater than two percent (2%). 1991 ADAS § 4.3.7; 2010 ADAS § 403.3;
2019 CBC § 11B-403.3. The route of travel has ground that is not flush
or flat. The ground has pavement distresses. Plaintiff, a cane user found
it difficult and frustrating to traverse in this area on an unlevel surface
because Plaintiff had to navigate even more carefully and overly
concerned and fearful in order to prevent injury. These abrupt changes
in level pose an increased risk of danger to Plaintiff, as he is more likely
to trip/fall than someone without disabilities. The excess changes in level
(i.e., uneven ground) denied Plaintiff full and equal use or access during
each of his visits by making it difficult/harder and more dangerous for
him to traverse the Property/route with his cane. The excess changes in
level (i.e., uneven ground) also deterred/deters Plaintiff from visiting the
Property because it would be difficult/harder and more dangerous for
Plaintiff to traverse the Property/route with his cane.
The paint used for the designated disabled parking spaces is so worn and
aged that it cannot (can hardly) be seen. 1991 ADAS § 4.6.3; 2010 ADAS
- 502.2.; 2010 CBC §§ 1129B.3, 1129B.4; 2019 CBC §§ 11B-502.2, 11B-
502.6.4.1, 502.6.4.2. This makes it unclear where the actual designated
disabled parking spaces are, and it makes it difficult for Plaintiff to use
the space. As a cane user, Plaintiff needs to be able to use the designated
disabled parking space, which should be located closest to the Business
entrance and linked to an accessible route of travel, because it is more
difficult for him, as opposed to individuals who do not use a mobility
device, to maneuver about the Property. Plaintiff knows from past
experience that when the paint for the designated disabled parking space
and/or access aisle is worn and aged, there is a greater risk that nondisabled
patrons will park there, which would prevent a disabled person
from using it and accessing the Business, thereby denying him equal use
or access to the Property.
The designated disabled parking spaces and the adjacent
loading/unloading access aisles do not measure the correct length and
width dimensions at the Property. The designated disabled parking
spaces measure less than nine feet (9’) wide and less than eighteen feet
(18’) long at the Property. 2010 ADAS § 502.2; 2010 CBC § 1129B.3;
2019 CBC § 11B-502.2. The loading/unloading access aisles adjacent to
the designated disabled parking spaces are less than five feet (5’) wide
and less than eighteen feet (18’) long at the Property. 1991 ADAS § 4.6.3;
2010 ADAS § 502.3.1; 2010 CBC § 1129B.3; 2019 CBC 11B-502.3.1. The
lack of space in the designated disabled parking space and access aisle
caused Plaintiff to experience difficulty and frustration because, as a
person with mobility impairments, Plaintiff needs the extra space to be
able to safely park, disembark the vehicle, and unload to access the route
of travel. Plaintiff experienced difficulty and frustration when using the
designated disabled parking area at the Property because the designated
disabled parking space and access aisle were too small, which denied him
full and equal use and access of the parking facility at the Property.
The International Symbol of Accessibility, a requirement of each
designated disabled parking space, are not clearly painted on the ground
surface of the parking spaces, which meant that Plaintiff found it
difficult and frustrating to identify and use the designated disabled
parking spaces when he visited the Property. 2010 CBC §§ 1129B.4;
1129B.3.1; 2019 CBC §§11B-502.6.4.2. Plaintiff, a cane user needs to be
able to locate the designated disabled parking space and the adjacent
access aisle so that Plaintiff can use them to safely park, disembark the
vehicle, and unload. Further, due to the lack of proper surface signage,
Plaintiff experienced frustration because he knows that this will make it
more likely that non-disabled patrons will improperly park in the
designated disabled parking space, as they would not be adequately
deterred.
The words “NO PARKING,” which are required to be painted in the
loading/ unloading access aisle, were missing (and/or were completely
faded such that the words were no longer visible). 2010 ADAS § 502.3.3;
2010 CBC § 1129B.3.1; 2019 CBC § 11B-502.3.3. As a result, nondisabled
patrons parked in the loading/unloading access aisle, blocking
Plaintiff from being able to use the access aisle. Plaintiff, a cane user,
needs extra space to be able to safely exit his vehicle and unload his
mobility device. Plaintiff has difficulty disembarking from his vehicle,
which poses a greater risk of injury to him and can cause him
humiliation and/or frustration. Plaintiff cannot access the Property
safely if he cannot use an accessible parking space and adjacent access
aisle.
The designated disabled parking spaces and the loading/unloading
adjacent access aisles at the Property contain excess changes in level (of
more than one-half inch without a ramp and/or more than one-quarter
inch without a bevel) and have slopes and cross slopes that are greater
than two percent (2%). 1991 ADAS § 4.6.3; 2010 ADAS § 502.4; 2010
CBC § 1129B.3.4; 2019 CBC § 11B-502.4. The asphalt is uneven, and the
ground has sunken and cracked parts. Plaintiff, a cane user found it
difficult and frustrating to traverse in this area on an unlevel surface
because Plaintiff had to navigate even more carefully to prevent injury
and had to traverse with a heightened and distressing fear of injury. The
lack of level ground surfaces in the designated disabled parking denied
Plaintiff full and equal use or access to the Property when Plaintiff
visited.
The route of travel from the designated disabled parking spaces to the
Business entrance has/have slopes greater than 1:20 (5%), but there is no
compliant ramp (with appropriate level ramp landings at the top and
bottom of each ramp). 1991 ADAS §§ 4.3.7, 4.8.1; 4.8.4(2), 4.8.4(3); 2010
ADAS § 403.3; 2010 CBC §§ 1133B.5.4.2, 1133B.5.4.6; 2019 CBC § 11B-
- It is difficult for Plaintiff, a cane user to walk/travel on sloped
surfaces that do not provide the safety features of a compliant ramp.
These excess changes in level pose risks to Plaintiff, including that he
may fall. The lack of a complaint ramp, with its attendant
safety/accessibility features, denied Plaintiff full and equal use or access
during his visits by making it difficult/harder for him to traverse the
Property/route.
- Plaintiff personally encountered the foregoing barriers on (and the
foregoing barriers existed) during each and every one of Plaintiff’s visits.
- These inaccessible conditions denied Plaintiff full and equal access,
and caused Plaintiff difficulty, humiliation, embarrassment, and/or frustration.
- Furthermore, although Plaintiff did not personally encounter all of the
following barriers, conditions, and/or violations, Plaintiff is informed that the
following barriers, conditions, and/or violations, remain at the Property:
The restroom entrance door is equipped with a door closer and returns
to a closed position in less than five (5) seconds. 1991 ADAS § 4.13.10;
2010 ADAS § 404.2.8.1; 2010 CBC § 1133B.2.5.1; 2019 CBC § 11B1
404.2.8.1. Plaintiff is a cane user; therefore, he would not be able to move
out of the doorway as quickly as others without disabilities. Thus, he
requires a safe restroom entrance that allows him extra time to pass
through without the risk of being injured by the closing door.
The restroom door at the Property exceeds the maximum allowable
opening force of five pounds (5 lbs.), which would cause Plaintiff to
experience difficulty and frustration when will visit the Property. 1991
ADAS § 4.13.11; 2010 ADAS § 404.2.9; 2010 CBC §1133B.2.5; 2019 CBC
- 11B-404.2.9. Plaintiff requires an accessible restroom entrance that
Plaintiff can navigate with their limitations that does not require the use
of excessive force to open. Without a compliant restroom entrance,
Plaintiff was denied full and equal use or access to the Property when he
would visit.
- Defendants knew that the foregoing architectural barriers prevented
access. Plaintiff will prove that Defendants had actual knowledge that the
architectural barriers prevented access, and that the noncompliance with the ADA
Standards for Accessible Design (“ADAS”), ADA Accessibility Guidelines for
Buildings and Facilities (“ADAAG”), and/or the California Building Code (“CBC”)
was intentional.
- Plaintiff intends and plans to visit the Property again to meet his
friends and get breakfast. Currently, Plaintiff is reasonably deterred from returning
to Defendants’ public accommodation facilities because of the knowledge of
barriers to equal access, relating to Plaintiff’s disabilities, that continue to exist at
the Property.
- Defendants failed to maintain in working and usable condition those
features necessary to provide ready access to persons with disabilities.
- Defendants have the financial resources to remove all of the
aforementioned barriers without much expense or difficulty in order to make their
Property and Business more accessible to their mobility impaired customers. The
removal of these barriers is readily achievable. The United States Department of
Justice has determined that removal of these types of barriers is readily achievable.
- On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants refuse to
remove all of the aforementioned barriers.
- On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ failure to
remove all of the aforementioned barriers was/is intentional, because the barriers
are logical and obvious. During all relevant times, Defendants had authority,
control, and dominion over these conditions; thus, the failure to provide accessible
facilities was not a mishap, but rather an intentional act.
- These barriers to access are described herein without prejudice to
Plaintiff citing additional barriers to access after further inspection by Plaintiff’s
experts and/or access agents. See Doran v. 7-ELEVEN, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (9th
Cir. 2008) (holding that once a plaintiff encounters one barrier at a site, a plaintiff
can sue to have all barriers that relate to his or her disability removed, regardless of
whether he or she personally encountered them); Thurston v. Midvale Corp., 39
Cal. App. 5th 634 (2019).
Previous Lawsuit Filed:
Case Name: Ed Hull, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Chapman-ARC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Quarters Korena BBQ., a business of unknown form; and Does 1-10.
Case Number: 24STCV15311
Date Filed: 06/18/2024
ADA Plaintiff Attorney: The Law Office of the Hakimi & Shahriari | Frederick Chernoff, Anoush Hakimi, Peter Shahriari, Reha Singh
Court: Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles